Mukhi v. United States of America
| Raju J. Mukhi |
| United States of America |
| 4:2018cv02002 |
| November 28, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| John M Bodenhausen |
| Taxes |
| 26 U.S.C. ยง 7422 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 24, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 6
Docket Text ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's unopposed motion for extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to plaintiff's complaint #5 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's answer or other response to plaintiff's complaint shall be due no later than 30 days after appropriations to the Department of Justice have been restored. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Bodenhausen on 01/24/2019. (LXC)
|
| Filing 5 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer (motion is unopposed) and Certificate of Service by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Robins, Samuel) |
| Filing 4 Pursuant to Local Rule 2.08, the assigned/referred magistrate judge is designated and authorized by the court to exercise full authority in this assigned/referred action or matter under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 3401, including any case budgeting matters. (CSAW) |
| Case Opening Notification: 2 Summons(es) issued. The summons was emailed to Sanford J. Boxerman. All parties must file the Notice Regarding Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction Form consenting to or opting out of the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Click #here for the instructions. Judge Assigned: Honorable John M. Bodenhausen. (MFG) |
| Filing 3 SUPPLEMENTAL re #1 Complaint,, Redacted Exhibit 1 is main document by Plaintiff Raju J. Mukhi. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 2 redacted, #2 Exhibit 3 redacted, #3 Exhibit 5 redacted)(Boxerman, Sanford) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF PROCESS SERVER by Plaintiff Raju J. Mukhi Process Server: Proserve - Dave Conder (MFG) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against defendant United States of America with receipt number 0865-6898107, in the amount of $400 Jury Demand,, filed by Raju J. Mukhi. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Civil Cover Sheet, #7 Original Filing Form, #8 Summons, #9 Attachment Notice of Intent to Use Process Server)(Boxerman, Sanford) Modified on 11/29/2018 (MFG). Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 5 has been sealed due to personal identifiers in accordance to Local Rule 2.17. (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/30/2018: #10 Summons Attorney General) (MFG). |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Mukhi v. United States of America | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Raju J. Mukhi | |
| Represented By: | Sanford J. Boxerman |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: United States of America | |
| Represented By: | Samuel Peter Robins |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
